(Among the answers to problems with
Mormonism I present the following --- about one of the most
distinguished Mormons--- and responded to by an outstanding
former professor at BYU and the University of
Utah).

Among the problems that I see with
Mormonism is the fact that intelligent, experienced
qualified people (often even professors at BYU) now fired
from their positions and excommunicated from their church,
still hang onto its claims.

They question the claims for the Book of
Mormon that it is historically true. Surely they realize
that archaeologically, geographically and historically it
fails every test-- but though they do not get along with the
Apostles and Prophets, they still want to be
Mormons.

If the claims for the Book of Mormon are
not true then Joseph Smith was an outright fraud.

How can sincere, intelligent Mormons
continue to argue on behalf of a "Mother God," or other
distinctly Mormon teachings?

Surely one or Mormonism's greatest men
was Brigham Henry Roberts. Roberts (1857-1933) was one of
their most able and devoted men.

The Fall 1997 issue of Dialog: of Mormon
Thought. vol. 30. No. 3 (a publication of men and women of
whom I wrote in my first paragraph), contains an article by
Brigham D. Madsen, a Professor Emeritus of History from the
University of Utah) This is found on pages 87-97 of
Dialogue.

Brigham D. Madsen. a graduate of Harvard
in 1960, was a distinguished professor BYU, was editor of
Defender of the Faith, the B.H. Roberts Story, published by
the pro-Mormon press. Bookcraft in 1980 and editor of
Robert's Studies of The Rook of Mormon published by the
University of Illinois Press(1985).

Longtime President of BTU. Ernest L.
Wilkinson, co-author of Brigham Young University School of
Destiny (1976), not only mentioned Madsen approvingly but
described him as an "experienced scholar' and a "popular
author and lecturer on religious subjects." He mentioned
that Madsen's "traveling and lecturing took him to 60
different college campuses during the first year" of his
association with BYU" (pg 797) He also represented BYU in "a
commuting professorship in Mormon Studies at the Graduate
Theological Union at the University of California at
Berkeley"

On page 856, Wilkinson and his coauthor
reported that was "to establish broader contacts with other
related organizations' and "religious groups throughout the
world"

Now l will not take the time to more than
mention that Roberts was the author of the six volume
Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints. My copy was published by Brigham Young
University Press in 1965. It was revised by Roberts (and
brought up to-date, April 6th.1930")

I've always heard that a genuine
scholar-- let the chips fall where they may--places his
scholarship above his personal desires, lifelong
convictions, etc

Perhaps this is Madsen's
Dilemma!

He relates that during the first 100
years of the Mormon Church's history (1830-1930) few members
questioned the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Those
leaving usually left over disputes over leadership, concern
over polygamy, discouragement about persecution and physical
hardship, etc.

Archaeology, origins of natives found
here by Columbus, etc. were not well advanced. Hardships of
crawling over the plains, problems with the US Government
over polygamy, etc. left little lime to be concerned with
the historicity of The Book of Mormon.

B.H. Roberts, a member of the Counsel of
the Seventy, was to be chief defender of this "new world
document," at first he spent his time advancing what he
considered the biblical proofs of the veracity or the Book
of Mormon.

As a result he wrote his three volume New
Witness for God in 1909. About this time(1902) Roberts
mentioned that he found no conflict between archaeological
science and the Book of Mormon.

HE dismissed "rather lightly," Madsen
says. "any accusation that Joseph Smith could have used
other works as a basis for a fictional account of the origin
of the American Indians..." He "even dismissed Ethan Smith's
1823 edition of View of the Hebrews, an error that "he later
acknowledged."

He assured his readers that later
explorations would add proof to the historicity of Smith's
work. Just 13 years later, he changed his mind. In 1921.
Rogers asked Mormon leaders five pointed questions. He
produced 141 type written pages entitled Book of Mormon
Difficulties.

Among his questions were: How could so
many Indian languages evolve over the relatively short
period of 1,000 years? The Book of Mormon mentions steel
when the Jews had no knowledge of it in 600 BC, the use of
silk in America which was unknown at the time of Columbus.
The real problem Robert's had. "what about the use of horses
in the Book of Mormon times?"

In early 1922, Roberts brought his
problems before his fellow "general authorities". They spent
three days in study. Madsen reports (page 89) that the LDS
authorities "seemed little interested in his (Robert's)
investigation."

Robert's Studies of the Book of Mormon
(pg 271) concludes that "The evidence is I sorrowfully
submit, points to Joseph Smith as author of their (the Book
of Mormon story) creator"

Madsen says (pg 89 of the Dialogue
article). "One can sympathize with Roberts and his sorrow
that, after venerating and admiring Joseph Smith for a
lifetime, he now had concluded him as less than a
prophet."

He then concluded that "If the Book of
Mormon itself could be proved to be other than it claims to
be... then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
it's message and doctrines, which in some respects may be
said to have risen out of the Book of Mormon must fall; for
if that book is other than it claims to be; if it's origin
is other than that ascribed to by Joseph Smith, then Joseph
Smith says that which is untrue; he is a false prophet of
false prophets; (and all he has taught and c!aimed) are not
only vain but mischievous and wicked;...... (and) beyond
human comprehending".

Madsen says (Dialogue, pg 91). " The
overwhelming evidence of these finds during the last 5O
years casts grave doubts, if not outright disbelief about
the Book of Mormon as history".

The Lost Tribes theory have long since
been discarded." He says "scientists today are firm that
Native Americans are related to the people of Northeastern
Siberia. (Oriental).

The writer of the article (Madsen) says
"some investigation.... would have intrigued Roberts
".

Roberts spent more than half a century
defending the Book of Mormon Dialogue. (pg 93).

Today, "over seventy years later, Loyal
but questioning Mormons" have resulted in a number of
independent "study groups." Madsen insists their questioning
should not result in their rejecting the claims of
Mormonism.

Why not?

Edward H. Ashment in New Approaches to
the Book of Mormon (pg 374). edited by Brent Lee Metcalfe,
says: "Unfortunately there is no direct evidence to support
the historical claims of the Book of Mormon----nothing
archaeologically, nothing physiological.

"The Metcalf volume is sufficient to
illustrate that some of them (recent books by Signature
Books and the University of Illinois Press) cast serious
questions on the Book of Mormon as history.` (Dialogue. pg.
94)

"Were there really gold plates and
ministering angels or was there just Joseph Smith seated at
a table with his face in a hat dictating to a scribe a
fictional account of the ancient inhabitants of the
Americas?' (Dialogue pg. 95)."

It is no wonder that Roberts wrote that
if it were other than Joseph Smith claimed, then "he is a
false prophet of false prophets; and all he taught. . .
(was) not only in vain but wicked." (Studies of the Book of
Mormon, pg 12).

The tragedy of it all is that when
Mormons finally come to the truth that there is nothing to
Mormonism, they often decide that all religion is a fraud.
What a pity? I think I never saw a real atheist until I went
to Utah nearly 57 years ago. There are many of them there!
Mormonism (and the Devil) is the culprit!